A Giant Step Backward For Arkansas Water Quality; Hb1929

[bfishn]

Whoa... groupthink.... I played that album yesterday... twice...

...where the air smelled like snakes,

and we'd shoot off our pistols,

but empty pop bottles was all we would kill.

[Terrierman]

It's a paper mill bill. Hope it doesn't become law.

[West Fork Jason]

Oops...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/31/us-exxon-pipeline-spill-idUSBRE92U00220130331

[Tim Smith]

This bill could pertain to new regulations. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are being written for a whole host of new contaminants and disturbances. New heat, sediment, and nutrient regulations are all coming online that states will have to abide by in the coming years. Different states are dealing with the new regulations in different ways. Is TDS, chloride and sulfate already online or recently online?

Breaking out drinking water as "designated uses" is something that can be done under the Clean Water Act and that occurs in other states. It would be a pretty high standard indeed if all waters were held to the same expectations.

Professional labs I know charge about 15$/sample/analysis once the sample is delivered to the lab. Along with TDS, nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspended solids, and a bunch of other things also need to be measured. It does add up.

The three things listed here are probably some of the less concerning water quality parameters. Mostly people scan down the list past these three (although they can indicate problems).

It really does take a lot of resources to sample a body of water properly. In most states, the sampling that's done isn't even close to adequate. Anyone sampling once a year in a body of water (especially a stream), doesn't have any useful information about that stream. After 20 years and if many other streams are sampled, there are some uses for that data, but almost all water quality parameters vary by huge amounts depending on recent weather and other disturbances.

[bfishn]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your interest.

If the bill was in response to new regulations, would it not have stated so or at least referenced such?

Yes, we do already have TDS, chloride and sulfate stream standards in place, which the bill specifically strikes down. See page 45 of Regulation 2 (governing surface waters) at;

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg02_final_110926.pdf

And yes, they are high standards indeed IMO, and have served us well for several decades.

I couldn't agree more that our current methods of sampling criteria and frequency are minimal at best, and as you noted, only general indicators of potential problems. That would suggest more extensive monitoring is needed, not less (or none).

For example, I got a call once from the testing agent, who was puzzled by a spike of calcium chloride in a recent sample of my hatchery spring. Duhhh, it was February, and the sample was right after a snow melt in the recharge area (guess what they treated the streets there with...). The point is, he caught something unusual and pursued it, so there is a benefit, even with our minimalist regime. We didn't drink the water, but the trout were definitely affected, by the sloughing off of their protective slime coat for a few days. I was only able to know why after the agent's call.

Which brings up a yet unbreached point. The bill doesn't apply to public drinking water supplies (though many rural private supplies still use these waters). That still leaves the AGFC lakes, forest service lakes, municipal lakes, and dozens of streams that we fish in. While TDS and mineral salts may get "scanned over" for drinking purposes, they can have a profound impact on a fishery, and the reason I brought it to this forum.

Now, please raise your attention from the chemistry a bit to look at the big picture.

This isn't an issue for the legislature. In 1967, the Ark. legislature created the Soil & Water Conservation Commission, and ceded legislative power for such matters to it, much like they gave fish and game matters to the AGFC to decide. Only once since (1987) has the legislature butted in, over a matter of riparian vs non-riparian water user rights. (S&WCC has morphed over the years into the ANRC and the ADEQ we now have).

It's a pretty safe bet that less than 1 in 10 of the bill's signators would know the difference between a chloride, a sulfate, and a piece of hard rock candy. Some entity obviously wrote the bill for them, and it wasn't the ANRC or the ADEQ. Only an entity that is already discharging such effluent into the designated waters, or one that wants to, would stand to gain from such deregulation.

This isn't a fiscal matter either. Despite the "emergency" wording in the bill, all the legislature would normally do when funds are short is cut the budget for the ANRC & ADEQ and let them deal with the shortfall as best suited their area of expertise and authority (see above).

Nope, this bill is an unprecedented and blatanty mischaracterized ruse, intended to benefit some unnamed entity(s) at the expense of the general public. I already suggested one possibility, but there are others too.

Some folks that know the law better than I say the bill violates the Clean Water Act, and that the EPA will never let it stand. Let's hope that's the case. If that happens, the only loss to Arkansas' citizens will be the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees the legislature could blow trying to defend their little masquerade.

[Terrierman]

One more time for the record. Its a paper mill bill plain and simple. They're the money players in Arkansas that have limits on TDS, Sulfates and Chlorides that they'd like to see relaxed. The changes they're looking for should not be a problem for anyone who doesn't care about macroinvertebrates or the aquatic food chain.

[bfishn]

I don't doubt that a bit, and pointed out the biggest of that bunch above. But there are already adequate provisions in the existing regulation for relaxation of the rules (see p25 of Reg. 2, referenced by the std. on p45). Relaxation isn't enough for them though, this bill wipes out the regulation entirely, and not just in the paper ecoregion, but statewide. Once in effect, there would be no monitoring of these waters, opening the door for much worse.

And I do care about macroinvertabrates and the aquatic food chain, as does everyone on this board, even those that don't know it. :-)

[Tim Smith]

I have no doubt that the bill was put together by industry people. My question is what is the impact of the language in this specific bill.

That's going to require backing up a step or 2.

If the bill was in response to new regulations, would it not have stated so or at least referenced such?

Yes, the bill does reference new regulations. The new regulation is the Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards are being established by the EPA for a wide variety of contaminants as part of the Clean Water Act. Those require quantitative scientific support for the standards for pollution limits. As a result, all over the country impaired watesheds are being studied to determine how much various groups holding discharge permits are allowed to release.

Here's a recent example of a TMDL study from Arksansas.

http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/tmdl/2011/ar/final/saline_r_tmdlf_aug2011.pdf

Here's a discussion from the EPA about how the TMDL process is unfolding.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/implement.cfm

Yes, we do already have TDS, chloride and sulfate stream standards in place, which the bill specifically strikes down. See page 45 of Regulation 2 (governing surface waters) at;

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg02_final_110926.pdf

TMDL standards will replace those standards and will be the regulatory instrument put in place by the EPA for each watershed where TMDLs are created.

And yes, they are high standards indeed IMO, and have served us well for several decades.

I think I need to look again at the types of watersheds and the fine print here. In general TMDLs improve water quality protection and are intended for watersheds that are already impaired. TMDLs do entail a monetary burden because they are generally put in place to improve conditions in watersheds that are impaired. The EPA regulates TMDLs and approves them so they should be in control of the process from the beginning. The drinking water issue (and effective uses in general...the presence of trout, for instance can alter TMDLs) is one I should probably look at more closely. It seems they're asking for several things there.

I'll look at this again and finish posting tonight.

[Tim Smith]

Yes, we do already have TDS, chloride and sulfate stream standards in place, which the bill specifically strikes down. See page 45 of Regulation 2 (governing surface waters) at;

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg02_final_110926.pdf

I see in the existing regulation 2 standards for water quality. One that is based on long term averages and one that is a hard limit for drinking water. So there are already 2 water quality criteria (more than that, really, but only 2 for TDS, Cl, and S).

What the proposed bill seems to want to do is limit "drinking water" as a designated use (again, drinking water a much higher standard) to streams that are already in use for drinking water or on official lists of potential drinking water sources.

A proper TMDL study will set limits for TDS, Cl and S that do not impair fisheries. That standard is generally much lower than the one for drinking water.

This isn't an issue for the legislature. In 1967, the Ark. legislature created the Soil & Water Conservation Commission, and ceded legislative power for such matters to it, much like they gave fish and game matters to the AGFC to decide. Only once since (1987) has the legislature butted in, over a matter of riparian vs non-riparian water user rights. (S&WCC has morphed over the years into the ANRC and the ADEQ we now have).

This one might cut a little closer to the heart of the matter, but it may go beyond inter-agency issues within Arkansas. TMDLs are implemented by the state, but are federally mandated (Clean Water Act). Having a State Legislature setting limits on implementation of a Federal regulation is probably more than I can wrap my poor head around. It may well be out of bounds for the Legislature to decide these things. The proper agency should be the Arkansas office of the EPA.

Some folks that know the law better than I say the bill violates the Clean Water Act, and that the EPA will never let it stand.

If my guess above is correct, that's why.

Other problems are assigning 4ft3/m average flows to small streams (which may actually be much smaller and would allow too much contaminant to prevent damage to biota). Also, how many streams have 60 samples over a 5 year period that the bill requires? Probably not many. That would stave off regulation for 5 years and assume that someone had the money to actually collect those samples.

[bfishn]

You're getting warmer...

...What the proposed bill seems to want to do is limit "drinking water" as a designated use (again, drinking water a much higher standard) to streams that are already in use for drinking water or on official lists of potential drinking water sources.....

Now you're getting hot. The bill specifies exemption only for existing drinking water sources and those identified as potential sources in the Arkansas Water Plan. The catch is that the AWP doesn't identify potential sources. That's addressed in Regulation 2, which identifies most Arkansas' waters as potential sources, which gave them the historical broad protection that the bill will strip to only existing drinking water sources.

The EPA Region 6 office did apparrently address the conflicts with the Clean Water Act in correspondence to the ADEQ prior to passage of the bill, but I can only find references to it, not the actual letter.

I also found reference to a letter written by the head of the Beaver Water District, voicing objections that pertained to the Beaver watershed (my water source). Again, I haven't yet found the actual letter.

In the meantime, here's a letter that was sent to the legislature while the bill was in consideration, addressing the matter better than I can.;

http://citizensfirst.org/about-us/legislative-priorities/water-resources/hb1929-letter/

BTW, I really appreciate your input here. I don't know what your background is, but Im sure you're more qualified to analyze and disscuss this than I am. All I know is I smelled a rat, and the smell ain't going away.